"JMA" wrote in message
...
:
: "dr_strangelove" escreveu na mensagem
: ...
: I developed an explanation of orbital precession that does not require
: GR. It only uses 2 well accepted physical formulas and some math. It
: can be viewed at:
: http://toe.sytes.net:65333/planetary%20precession.pdf
:
: I await your personal attacks and name calling.
:
: Thank you very much.
:
: The mercury's perihelion advance is 5599 arc second,
: or two degrees per century.
: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
:
: The value you need to find is 5599, not 43.

Mercury's perihelion advance was
0.32508305640618486353538008757815 arc seconds between
June 2004 and Sept 2004 as measured by me, which is
134.88924824245825366867083570342 arc seconds per
century. That's the value you need to find. Go measure it and
see. Get Einstein to hold your telescope steady for you, because
Einstein didn't have one, you can't use his (if you can even find
Mercury, not many have ever seen it).

David has done exactly what Einstein did, contrived a result
he wanted in the hope of gaining recognition as a bull****ter.

On Nov 28, 2:31 am, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:58:37 -0800 (PST), dr_strangelove

wrote:
I developed an explanation of orbital precession that does not require
GR. It only uses 2 well accepted physical formulas and some math. It
can be viewed at:
http://toe.sytes.net:65333/planetary%20precession.pdf

I await your personal attacks and name calling.

Thank you very much.

You are obviously wrong without even getting into the idiocies of
using SR and Newton together to explain something gravitational in
nature.

By assuming a 1/r potential you have already determined the physics.
There is no precession of perihelia in a 1/r attractive potential. You
are doubly dead on arrival.

Oh, you mean squaring 1/r doesn't give 1/r^2?

I am gonna sue my second grade math teacher. I hope I can get you to
testify Eric.

"Androcles" escreveu na mensagem
. uk...

"JMA" wrote in message
...
:
: "dr_strangelove" escreveu na mensagem
: ...
: I developed an explanation of orbital precession that does not require
: GR. It only uses 2 well accepted physical formulas and some math. It
: can be viewed at:
: http://toe.sytes.net:65333/planetary%20precession.pdf
:
: I await your personal attacks and name calling.
:
: Thank you very much.
:
: The mercury's perihelion advance is 5599 arc second,
: or two degrees per century.
: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
:
: The value you need to find is 5599, not 43.

Mercury's perihelion advance was
0.32508305640618486353538008757815 arc seconds between
June 2004 and Sept 2004 as measured by me, which is
134.88924824245825366867083570342 arc seconds per
century. That's the value you need to find. Go measure it and
see. Get Einstein to hold your telescope steady for you, because
Einstein didn't have one, you can't use his (if you can even find
Mercury, not many have ever seen it).

David has done exactly what Einstein did, contrived a result
he wanted in the hope of gaining recognition as a bull****ter.

You claim you have measured the perihelion advance.
How did you measure it? with a telescope?
Do you know what the trajectory should be, if there is
no precession ?
You need to observe during minimum two orbites and then
measure the perihelion advance.

Actually I cannot see how precession could occur without
a torque orthogonal to the plane of precession.
So far, here on earth, without torque nobody could make
anything undergo precession.

What is really a mystery is how people talk about
precession of mercury orbit, but nobody has any idea
what precession is, and what causes the torque that
causes precession. Most of the people don't even know
how torque should be applied (where the vector points)
to achieve precession of a rotating system.

Many people around here believe on precession without
torque (that is, precession by means of magic).

The fact is that I've already seen many drawings about
the perihelion advance. None looks like precession to me.
Precession is rotation around the center of mass of the
system (the Sun here) placed at the foci of the orbit.
The above drawing is not precession, or is just a bad drawing:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...v/grel.html#c2
But, so far, all drawings look wrong and I've seen many.

"JMA" wrote in message
...
:
: "Androcles" escreveu na mensagem
: . uk...
:
: "JMA" wrote in message
: ...
: :
: : "dr_strangelove" escreveu na mensagem
: :
...
: : I developed an explanation of orbital precession that does not
require
: : GR. It only uses 2 well accepted physical formulas and some math. It
: : can be viewed at:
: : http://toe.sytes.net:65333/planetary%20precession.pdf
: :
: : I await your personal attacks and name calling.
: :
: : Thank you very much.
: :
: : The mercury's perihelion advance is 5599 arc second,
: : or two degrees per century.
: : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
: :
: : The value you need to find is 5599, not 43.
:
: Mercury's perihelion advance was
: 0.32508305640618486353538008757815 arc seconds between
: June 2004 and Sept 2004 as measured by me, which is
: 134.88924824245825366867083570342 arc seconds per
: century. That's the value you need to find. Go measure it and
: see. Get Einstein to hold your telescope steady for you, because
: Einstein didn't have one, you can't use his (if you can even find
: Mercury, not many have ever seen it).
:
: David has done exactly what Einstein did, contrived a result
: he wanted in the hope of gaining recognition as a bull****ter.
:
: You claim you have measured the perihelion advance.

Sure, it's fairly easy. Astronomers have been doing such work
for hundreds of years.


: How did you measure it? with a telescope?

Sighted it with a telescope, sure. What are you asking? How to read
angles of right ascension and declination?

: Do you know what the trajectory should be, if there is
: no precession ?

What's this "if"? The orbit should be an ellipse if there are
no other planets, but there are.

: You need to observe during minimum two orbites and then
: measure the perihelion advance.
:
: Actually I cannot see how precession could occur without
: a torque orthogonal to the plane of precession.

There's Jupiter, Venus, Earth ... Mars and the outer planets to
a lesser extent ... plenty of "torque". It's different for every orbit.

: So far, here on earth, without torque nobody could make
: anything undergo precession.
:
: What is really a mystery is how people talk about
: precession of mercury orbit, but nobody has any idea
: what precession is, and what causes the torque that
: causes precession.

Don't be silly, of course I know what it is and the cause!
Take a look at this:
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection.html
Example 5 precesses 90 degrees per orbit, that's enough,
isn't it?

: Most of the people don't even know
: how torque should be applied (where the vector points)
: to achieve precession of a rotating system.
:
: Many people around here believe on precession without
: torque (that is, precession by means of magic).

Yeah, that's Einstein's crap. Most people have their heads
up their arse and go for Einstein's magic, but as you say, they
have no idea. They just want to sound knowledgeable, that's all.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:12:50 -0800 (PST), dr_strangelove
wrote:

On Nov 28, 2:31 am, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:58:37 -0800 (PST), dr_strangelove

wrote:
I developed an explanation of orbital precession that does not require
GR. It only uses 2 well accepted physical formulas and some math. It
can be viewed at:
http://toe.sytes.net:65333/planetary%20precession.pdf

I await your personal attacks and name calling.

Thank you very much.

You are obviously wrong without even getting into the idiocies of
using SR and Newton together to explain something gravitational in
nature.

By assuming a 1/r potential you have already determined the physics.
There is no precession of perihelia in a 1/r attractive potential. You
are doubly dead on arrival.

Oh, you mean squaring 1/r doesn't give 1/r^2?

I am gonna sue my second grade math teacher. I hope I can get you to
testify Eric.

Do you know how to get force from a potential?

If so, why are you saying something so stupid?

If not, why are you even talking when you don't have the faintest clue
of what you are trying to discuss?

"JMA" wrote in :

What is really a mystery is how people talk about
precession of mercury orbit, but nobody has any idea
what precession is

[quote http://www.thefreedictionary.com/precession]
1. The rotational motion of the axis of a spinning body, such as the
wobbling of a spinning top, caused by torque applied to the body along its
axis of rotation.
2. The motion of this kind made by the Earth's axis, caused mainly by the
gravitational pull of the Sun, Moon, and other planets. The precession of
Earth's axis has a period of nearly 25,800 years, during which time the
reference points on the equatorial coordinate system (the celestial poles
and celestial equator) will gradually shift their positions on the
celestial sphere. The precession of the equinoxes is the slow westward
shift of the autumnal and vernal equinoxes along the ecliptic, resulting
from precession of the Earth's axis. See also nutation.
[unquote]



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Nov 28, 8:19 pm, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:12:50 -0800 (PST), dr_strangelove



wrote:
On Nov 28, 2:31 am, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:58:37 -0800 (PST), dr_strangelove

wrote:
I developed an explanation of orbital precession that does not require
GR. It only uses 2 well accepted physical formulas and some math. It
can be viewed at:
http://toe.sytes.net:65333/planetary%20precession.pdf

I await your personal attacks and name calling.

Thank you very much.

You are obviously wrong without even getting into the idiocies of
using SR and Newton together to explain something gravitational in
nature.

By assuming a 1/r potential you have already determined the physics.
There is no precession of perihelia in a 1/r attractive potential. You
are doubly dead on arrival.

Oh, you mean squaring 1/r doesn't give 1/r^2?

I am gonna sue my second grade math teacher. I hope I can get you to
testify Eric.

Do you know how to get force from a potential?

If so, why are you saying something so stupid?

If not, why are you even talking when you don't have the faintest clue
of what you are trying to discuss?


His posts are constructive. I wonder sometimes if it's difficult for
you to appreciate anything but destruction.

On Nov 27, 4:58 pm, dr_strangelove wrote:
I developed an explanation of orbital precession that does not require
GR.


http://www.dkimages.com/discover/pre...5/35092155.JPG

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:55:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:
[...]



His posts are constructive. I wonder sometimes if it's difficult for
you to appreciate anything but destruction.

Stupidity is not constructive. He doesn't know the difference between
force and the scalar potential.

On Nov 29, 5:55 am, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:55:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:

[...]



His posts are constructive. I wonder sometimes if it's difficult for
you to appreciate anything but destruction.

Stupidity is not constructive. He doesn't know the difference between
force and the scalar potential.

That's nice. Why don't you get off your rear and explain it to him
instead of just flapping your jaw randomly to "hear" the sound of your
own voice?